Social Influence (P1) Flashcards

Question

What is a limitation of NSI and ISI? | Conformity: Types and explanations

Answer 1

Unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work in research studies (or in real life) ## Footnote Asch (1955) * Found that conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant. This dissenter may reduce the power of ISI (because they provide social support) or they may reduce the power of ISI (because they provide an alternative source of social information) * Hard to seperate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate together in most real-world conformity situations

Answer 2

The 'parts' people play as members of various social groups. These are accompaned by expectations of what is appropiate behaviour in each role ## Footnote Everyday examples include: parent, child, student, passenger and so on.

Answer 3

21 Male student volunteers who tested as emotionally stable

Answer 4

* Mock prison with 21 student volunteers randomly assigned as guard or prisoner * Conformity to social roles created through uniforms (e.g. loose smocks, wooden clubs) and instructions about behaviour (e.g. guards have power) ## Footnote * Mock prison in the bottom of Stanford University * Students were randomly assigned to play the role of prison guard or prisoner **Uniform** * Prisoners were given a loose smock, cap to cover their hair and a number * Guards had a wooden club, handcuffs, and mirror shades * Create de-individualisation (loss of personal identity) **Instructions about behaviour** * Prisoners encouraged to identify with their role e.g. rather than leaving the study they had to apply for parole * Guards encouraged by reminding them they had power of the prisoners

Answer 5

* Guards became increasingly brutal, prisoners' rebellion put down and prisoners became depressed * Study stopped after 6 days ## Footnote * Guards identified more closely with their role. Their behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had. Zimbardo ended the study 8 days early. * Guards took up their roles with enthusiasm treating the prisoners harshly * Within 2 days prisoners rebelled by ripping their uniforms, shouting, swearing at guards, Guards retaliated with fire extinguishers * Guards used divide-and-rule tactics by playing prisoners against each other * Harrased prisoners constantly to remind them of their powerlessness e.g. conductinf freuqnet headcounts sometimes at night * Guards highlighted differences in social roles by creating oppurtunities to enforce the rules and administer punishments * After rebellion had ended prisoners became depressed and anxious * One was released because he showed symptoms of pyschological disturbance. 2 more released on 4th day * One prisoner went on a hunger strike resulting in guards trying to force feed him and then punished him by putting him in the hole

Answer 6

Participants strongly conformed to their social roles ## Footnote * Social roles have a strong influence on individuals' behaviour. The guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive * Roles easily taken on by participants. Even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions (e.g. prison chaplain) found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than a study

Answer 7

Control over key variables ## Footnote * Most obvious example was the selection of the participants * Emotionally-stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to guard or prisoner * This ruled out indivdual personality differences * If guards and prisoners behaved very differently but were in these roles by chance then their behaviour must be due to the role * Control increased internal validity

Answer 8

1. Exaggerates the power of roles 2. Lack of realism ## Footnote 1. Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour. Only one third of the guards behaved brutally. Another third tried to apply the rules fairly. The final third tried to help the prisoners (e.g. offerd cigarettes and reinstated privelleges). Most guards were ablte to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role. Zimbardo overstated conformity to social roles and understated influence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality) 2. Didn't have the realism of a true prison. Banuazizi and **Movahedi** (1975) argued the participant were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role, Participants' performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. One of the guards claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from a film (Cool Hand Luke). Prisoners rioted because they thought this was what participants did. **COUNTERPOINT**: McDermott (2019) argues that the participants did behave as if the prison was real to them. 90% of the prisoners conversation were about prison life. They discussed how it ws impossible to leave before their 'sentences were over. Prisoner 416 explained how he believed the prison was a real one but run by psychologists. High internal validity as it did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison'

Answer 9

American male participants gave fake electric shocks to a 'Learner' in response to instructions (prods) from an 'Experimenter' ## Footnote * 40 American males * Yale university * When each volunteer arrived at Milgram's lab they were introduced to a confederate * Drew lots to see who would be the Teacher amd who would be the Learner * Draw was fixed, participant always the Teacher * Experimenter = confederate dressed in a lab coat * Teacher could not see the Learner but could hear him * Teacher had to give the learner an electric shock when the Learner made a mistake on a memory task * Shocks increased with each mistake in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts * Shocks were fake bu seemed dangerous to naive participant

Answer 10

* Male * 20-50 yrs * Volunteers * Recruited through a newspaper advert or mailshot and were paid $4.50 for participating

Answer 11

* Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300 volts * 12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300 volts * 65% continue to the highest level (450 volts) i.e were fully obedient Milgram collected qualitative data including observations * Participants showed signs of extreme tension, many of them were seen to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, dig fingernails into their hand * 3 had full-blown uncontrollable seizures

Answer 12

* Prior to the study 14 psychology students were asked to predict the participants' behaviour * Students estimated that no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts * Follow-up questionnaire to participants revealed 84% said they were glad to have participated

Answer 13

* German people aren't different * American participants were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person * Suspected there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience so decided to conduct further studies to investigate them

Answer 14

Research support ## Footnote Findings replicated on a French documentary made about reality TV - **Beauvois et al (2012)** * Participants in the 'game' believed they were contenstents in a pilot episode for a new show called Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death) * They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by the presenter) to other participants (confederates) in front of an audience * 80% of the participants delivered the maxximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man * Bheaviour almost identical to Milgram's participants - nervous laughter, nail-biting and other signs of anxiety ** Sheridan and King (1972) ** * Conducted a study using similar procedure to Milgram * Participants gave real shocks to a puppu in response to orders from an experimenter * 54% of male student participants and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock * People behaved obediently even when the shocks were real

Answer 15

1. "Please continue" or "Please go on" 2. "The experiment requires that you continue 3. "It is absolutely essential that you continue" 4. "You have no other choice, you must go on"

Answer 16

1. Low internal validity 2. Alternative interpretation of findings ## Footnote **1** * May not have been testing what it intended to test * .Milgram reported 75% of his participants said they believed the shocks were genuine * Orne and Holland (1968) argued that particpants behaved as they did because they didn't really believe in the set up * Perry (2013)'s research confirms this 'play acting'. She listened to tapes of Milgram's participants and reported that only about half of them believed the shocks were real * 2/3rds of these particpants were disobedient * Particiapnts may have been responding to demand characteristics trying to fulfill the aims of the study **2** * Haslam et al (2014) showed tha Milgram's participants obeyed when the Experimenter delivered the first 3 verbal prods * However every participant who was given the fourth prod ("You have no other choice, you must go on") disobeyed * According to social identity theory (SIT) participants in Milgram's study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research ("The experiment requires they you continue") * When they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure they refused * Shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings

Answer 17

Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person's behaviour ## Footnote Alternative = dispositional variables where behaviour is explained in terms of personality

Answer 18

1. Proximity 2. Location 3. Uniform

Answer 19

Teacher and Learner were in the same room ## Footnote In the baseline study the Teacher could hear the Learner but could not see him

Answer 20

Teacher had to force the learner's hand onto an electroshock plate when he refused to answer a question

Answer 21

Experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the Teacher by telephone

Answer 22

20.5% ## Footnote Participants frequently pretended to give shocks

Answer 23

Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions

Answer 24

Conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than in the prestigious Yale university setting of the baseline study

Answer 25

* Presitigous university environment gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority * Participants were more obedient in this location because they perceived that the Experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected * Obedience rates were still high in the office block because the participans perceived the scientific nature of the procedure

Answer 26

* In baseline study the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat (symbol of authority) * In one variation Experimenter was called away because of a telephone call at the start of the procedure. Role of Experimenter was taken over by an everyday member of the public (Confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat

Answer 27

20% ## Footnote Lowest of the variations

Answer 28

* Uniforms encourage obedience because the are widely recognised as symbols of authority * We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (i.e. it is granted by society) * Someone without a uniform has a less right to expect obedience

Answer 29

1. Research support 2. Cross-cultural replications ## Footnote **1** **Bickman (1974)** * Field experiment in NYC * 3 confederates dress in different outfits (Jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit, and a security guard's uniform) * The confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter * People were twice as lieklu to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie * Supports situational variable uniform **2** **Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986)** * Used a more realistic procedure than Milgram's study to study obedience in Dutch participants * Participants were ordered to say stressful things in an intervew to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job * 50% of participants obeyed * Researcher replicated Milgram's findings of proximity * When the person giving orders wasn't present obedience dramitically decreased

Answer 30

1. Low internal validity 2. Cross-cultural replications ## Footnote **1** **Orne and Holland (1968)** * Point out that it is even more likely in his variation because of the extra manipulation of variables * The variation where the Experimenter is replaced by a 'member of the public'. Even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some participants may have discovered the truth * In all of Milgram's studies it is unclear whether the findings are genuienly due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and play-acted (demand characteristics) **2** **Smith and Bond (1998)** * Identified just 2 replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in non-Western countries (India and Jordan) * Other countries involved (Spain, Austrialia) aren't culturally different from the USA

Answer 31

A mental state where we feel no personal responsibilty for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure i.e. as their agent ## Footnote This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allow us to obey even a destructuve authority figure

Answer 32

When someone is in the agentic state they experience high anxiety (Moral strain) when they realise what they're doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey

Answer 33

Free to behave according to their own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for their own actions

Answer 34

Agentic shift

Answer 35

* When a person perceives someone else as an authority figure ## Footnote The authority figure has a greater power because they have a higher position in a social hierarchy

Answer 36

Binding factors

Answer 37

Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or miniise the damaging effect of their behaviours and thuse reduce the moral strain they're feeling ## Footnote Milgram proposed a number of strategies that the individual uses such as shifting the responsibility to the victim "He was foolish to volunteer" or denying the damage they were doing to the victims

Answer 38

An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy

Answer 39

* Where problems arise because legitimate authority becomes destructive * Shown by Hitler * Destructive authority obvious in Milgram's study when the Experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences

Answer 40

A limited explanation ## Footnote * Doesn't explain research findings about obedience * Does not explain findings of **Rank and Jacobson (1977)'s** study * They found 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an overdoes of a drug to a patient * The doctor was an aboius authority figure but almost all nurses remained autonomous * So did many of Milgram's participants * Agentic state can only account for some situations of obedience

Answer 41

Research support ## Footnote **Milgrams study** * Most of Milgram's participants resisted giving the shocks at some point and often asked the Experimenter questions about the procedure * One of these was "Who is responsible if Mr Wallace (Learner) is harmed?" Experimenter replied "I'm responsible" the participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections * Shows once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour they acted more easily as the Experimenter's agent as Milgram suggested

Answer 42

Cannot explain all (dis)obedience ## Footnote * **Rank and Jacobson's** study * Most nurses (16/18) were disobedient despite working in a rigid hierarchal authority structure * A significant minority of Milgram's participants disobeyed despite recognising the Experimenter's scientific authority * Suggests some people may just may be more/less obedient than others * It is possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater infleunce on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure

Answer 43

Explains cultural differences ## Footnote * Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority * Kilham and Mann (1974) found that only 16% of female Australian participants went to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study * Mantell (1971) found 85% for German participants * Shows in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals * This reflects the ways that different socities are structures and how children are raised to perceive authority figures

Answer 44

A type pf personality that ardono argued was especially supsecitible to obeying people in authority ## Footnote Such people are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors

Answer 45

* Show extreme respect (and submissiveness) to authority * View society as weaker than it once was so believe we need strong powerful leaders to enforce traditional values * Show contempt for those of inferior social status * Absolutist thinking (black and white thinking) * Very uncomfortable with uncertainty * People who are 'other' (e.g. ethnic groups) are responsible for the ills of society

Answer 46

* Forms in childhood * Result of harsh parenting * Parenting style typically features extremely strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and sevre criticism of perceived failings * Parents give conditional love (their love/affection depends for their child depends on how they behave) * Childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child that cannot be expressed directly against the parents because of fear of punishment * So their fears are displaced onto others who they perceive as weaker (scapegoating) ## Footnote Psychodynamic explantion

Answer 47

* 2000+ middle,class white Americans * Unconscious attitudes tiwards other racial groups * Developed several measurement scales including potential-for-facism scale (F-scale) * This scale is still used to measure Authoritarian Personality * Examples of items from the F-scale: 'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn' and 'There is hardly anything lower than a person who doesn't feel great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents'

Answer 48

* People who scored high on the F-scale and other measures identified with strong people and were generally contempuous of the weak * They were very conscious of their own and other's status * Showed extreme respect, deference, and servility to those of higher status (traits of obedience) * Authoritarian people had a certain cognitive style (way of perceiving others) in whih there was no fuziness between categories of people (black and white thinking) * They had fixed and distincitve stereotypes of other groups * Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Answer 49

1. Limited explanation 2. Political bias ## Footnote 1. Cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country's population. In pre-war Germany millions of individuals displayed obedience, racist and anti-semetic behaviour. This was despite that they must have differed in personalities. Unlikely that they could all possess an Authoritarian Personality. An alternative view is that the majority of the German people identified with the anti-semetic Nazi state and scapegoated the outgroup of Jewish people, a social identity approach. Alternative explanation is more realistic 2.** Christie and Jahoda (1954)** * Argued the F-scale is a politically-biased interpretation of Authoritarian Personality * The reality of left-wing authoritarianism in the shape of Russian Bolshevism * Extreme right-wing or left-wing ideologies have a lot in common e.g. both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority * Not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across whole political spectrum

Answer 50

Research support ## Footnote **Elms and Milgran (1966)** * Interviewed a small sample of people had participated in the orgiinal obedience studies and had been fully obedient * All completed the F-scale (and other measures) as part of the interview * These 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher on the overall F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants * Findings support Adorno et al's view that obedient people may show similar characteristics to people who have an authoriarian personality

Answer 51

Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority ## Footnote Ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by situational and dispositional factors

Answer 52

* Pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who aren't conforming * Evident in Asch's research where the confederate not conforming may not be giving the right answer * The fact that someone else is not following the majority is social support * It enables the naive participant to be free to follow their own conscience * Confederate acts as a model of independent behaviour * Dissent gives rise to more dissent as it shows the majority is no longer unanimous

Answer 53

* Pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who is seen to disobey * One of Milgram's variations the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate * Participant may not follow the disobedient person's behaviour * The other person's disobedience acts as a model of disobedience of dissent for the participant to copy and this frees him to act from his own conscience * Disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority making it easier for others to disobey

Answer 54

Real-world research support ## Footnote **Albrecht et al (2006)** * Evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA (an 8 week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist pressire to smoke) * Social support was provided by a slightly older mentor * At the end of the programme adolescents who had a mentor were signficantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who didn't have a mentor * Social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world Gamson et al (1982) * Participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run smear campaign * Found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram did in his * This may be because the participants were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do * 29/33 groups of participants (88%) rebelled against their orders * Peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure

Answer 55

Believe the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves

Answer 56

Believe the things that happen to them are outside of their control

Answer 57

* LOC is a scale * Individuals vary on the scale * High external LOC is at one end * High internal LOC is at the other * Low internal and low external lie in-between

Answer 58

* High internal Loc more able to resist pressures to conform or obey * This is because they take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences and tend to base their decision on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others * High internal Loc tend to be more self-confident, more achievement-orientated and have higher intelligence. These traits lead ti greater resistance to social influece

Answer 59

Research support ## Footnote Holland (1967) * Repeated Milgram's baseline study and measure whether participants were internals or externals * 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (showed resistance) * only 23% of externals did not continue * Internals showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation * Resistance is at least partly related to LOC which increased the validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience

Answer 60

Contradictory research ## Footnote Twenge et al (2004) * Analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted from 1960-2002 * Data showed that over this time span people became more resistant to obedience but also more external * If resistance is related to an internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal * Suggests LOC is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence

Answer 61

A form of social influence in which a minority of people persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Leads to internalisation or conversion in which private attitudes are changed as well as public attitude

Answer 62

* Minority must be consisten in their views * Over time this consistency increases the amount of interest from other people * This makes other people rethink their own views and become increasingly likely to join the minority

Answer 63

Agreement between members of the minority group

Answer 64

Consistency over time

Answer 65

Minorities engage in extreme activities that present some risk to the minority group to draw attention to their views

Answer 66

Members of the minority need to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable/valid counterarguments ## Footnote **Nemeth** argued consistency can be off putting as repition of same arguments and behaviour mat be seen as dogmatic thus is unlikely to convert many people to the minority view

Answer 67

* Hearing something new makes you think more deeply about it (especially if the source is consistent, committed, and flexible) * This deeper processing is important to the process of conversion to the minority viewpoint * Over time increasing numbers of people switch from majority position to minority position * More this happens the faster the rate of conversion (snowball effect) * Gradually the minority view has become the majority view and change has occured

Answer 68

1. Research support - consistency 2. Research support - deeper processing ## Footnote **1. Moscovici et al** * blue/green slide study * 6 people asked to view 36 blue-coloured slides that varied in intensity and then state whether the slide was blue or green * In each group there were 2 confederates who consistently said the slides were green * True participant agreed with the confederates 8% of the time * 2nd group were exposed to an incosistent minority (said green 24 times and blue 12 times) * Agreement with the answer green fell to 1.25% * No confederates = incorrect 0.25% of the trials **2. Martin et al (2003)** * Presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured participants' agreement * 1 group then heard a minority group agree with the initial view while other group hear majority group agree * Participants exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again * People were less willing to change their opinion if they'd listened to a minority group than if they had listened to the majority group * Minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect supporting the central argument about how minority influence works

Answer 69

1. Artificial tasks 2. Lack of real world application ## Footnote 1. * Tasks involved are often artificial * Moscovici et al's task of identifying the colour of a slide * Research removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life * In cases such as jury the oucomes are more important * Lack internal validity * Limited in ability to tell us how minroity influence works in real life 2. * Research studies make clear distinctions between majority and minority (e.g. Martin et al) * While being controlled is a strength this isn't reflective of real-world social influence situations which are complex * Majorities usually have a lot more power and status than the minorities * Minorities are committed to their cause as they face hostile opposition * These features are absent from research as the minority is simply the smallest group * Martin et al's findings are limited in explaining minority influence in real-world situations

Answer 70

* 1950s * Black and white segregation applied to all parts of America * The civil rights marches of this period drew attention to the situation through providing social proof to the problem

Answer 71

* Civil rights activists represented a minoirty of American population * Their position remained consistent * Millions took part in the marches presenting the same peaceful message

Answer 72

Activism meant that many people who had accepted the status quo began to think deeply about the unjustness of it

Answer 73

* Individuals risk their lives multiple times * Freedom riders boarded buses in the south challenging segregation of transport * Many were beaten * Personal risk indicated a strong belief and augments their message

Answer 74

* Activists gradually got attention of government * Increasing numbers supported minority position * 1964 US Civil RIghts Act prohibited discrimination making a change from minoirty to majority support for civil rights

Answer 75

* People have a memory that change occured but don't recall how it occured * Social change occured in the south of America but some have no memory of the events that led to that change

Answer 76

* Asch highlighted importance of dissent in 1 variation (where 1 confederate gave correct answers throughout the procedure) this broke the power of the majority encouraging others to do similar. Potential to lead to social change * Normative Social Influence - environmental and health campaigns do this by providing information about what others are doing e.g. preventing young people from smoking by telling them most other young people don't smoke . Change encouraged by drawing attention to what majority is doing

Answer 77

* Milgram's research demonstrate the importance of disobedient role models in the variation where a confederate Teacher refuses to give shocks to the Learner the rate of obedience in genuine participants decreased * Zimbardo suggested how obedience can be usted to create social change through the process of gradual committment. Once a small intruction is obeyed it becomes difficult to resist a biiger one causing people to drift into new kinds of behaviours

Answer 78

1. Research support -Normative Social Influence 2. Minority influence explains change ## Footnote **1. Nolan et al ** * Aimed to seeif they chould change people's energy-use habits * Hung messages on front doors of houses in California every week for 1 month * Key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage * As a control some residents had a different message asking to save energy with no reference to others * Significant decrease found in energy usage in the first group compared to the second * Conformity can lead to social change through NSI **2. Nemeth (2003)** * Social change is due to the type of thinking that minorities inspire * When people consider minority arguments they engage in divergent thinking * Type of thinking is broad where the thinker actively searches for information and weighs up multiple options * This leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues * Dissenting minorities are valuable as they stimulate new ideas and open minds that the majoirty cannot

Answer 79

1. Opposing evidence 2. Role of deeper processing ## Footnote **1. Foxcroft et al (2015)** * Reviewed social norms interventions as part of the gold standard Cohrone Collaboration * This review included 70 studies whhere the social norms appproach was used to reduce students' alcohol use * Researchers found only a small reduction in drinking quality and no effect on drinking frequency * NSI oes not always produce long-term social change **2. Mackie (1987)** * Disagrees and presents evidence that it is majority influence that may create deeper processing if you don't share their views * Because we like to believe that other people share our views and think in the same ways as us * When we find that the majoirty believes something different then we are forced think about their arguments and reasoning * Challenges a central element of minority influence

Social Influence (P1) Flashcards

(108 cards)